The Question of Mr. Bogdanov and theVperyodGroup[2]

(FOR THE EDITORS OFPRAVDA)

Written:Written June 3 (16), 1913Published:First published in 1930 in the second and third editions of V. I. Lenin’sCollected Works, Vol. XVI.

      Published according to the manuscript.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1977,

      Moscow,Volume 19,

      pages173-174.Translated:The Late George HannaTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Theaction of the editors in respect of Mr. Bogdanov’s
distortion of Party history is so scandalous that, to tell the truth, one
does not know whether it is possible after this to remain a contributor.

Whatactually happened?

Inmy article there wasnot a wordagainst Mr. Bogdanov (who
is not a member of theVperyodgroup); there was not a word ofcensurein general.

Ascautiously as possible I stated a fact—that the trend condemnedunanimously by the entire Party was “connected with the Vperyod
			     line”.[1]

Nota word more.Nor couldMr. Bogdanov quote anything more
himself!

Thequestion arises—can this fact be evaded? It cannot, for the Partysimultaneouslycondemned both liquidationism and
otzovism.[3]Anyone who tried to avoid this fact when speaking of Party
history in respect of liquidationism would beswindling. I dare
say the editors do not demand that I should engage in swindling. I have to
believe this, especially in view of the editorial board’s having announced
its agreement with No. 95!

Isthe fact true? The editors agree that it is. It would be
difficultnot to agreesince theVperyodgroup itself
declared that otzovism was a “legitimate tendency”!

Ifthe fact is true, then how could they possibly allow (“for tile
sake of impartiality”) Mr. Bogdanovto lieabout it? The only
explanation I can think of is that the editors lackknowledge of theVperyodgroup’s history (unless someone has been
affected by an absolutely blinding enthusiasm for the reactionary trash
that philosopher Bogdanov teaches the workers).

Theeditors probably do not know that theVperyodgroup is
disintegrating completely. Mr. Bogdanov left them a long time ago—his
“philosophy” wascondemnedin the press by Alexinsky of theVperyodgroup. That same Alexinsky condemned “proletarian
culture” (from theVperyodplatform)in the press. Does
the editorial board not know this?

Bogdanov,Domov,[4]Lyadov,
Volsky[5]and
Stepinsky[6]have nowlefttheVperyodgroup (and
Lunacharsky is on the point of leaving—see thenew leaflets in
Paris). Does the editorial board not know this?

Theeditors are supporting the worst (hopeless) elements among the
bourgeois liars from theVperyodgroupagainstthe best
(like Alexinsky) who havebrokenwith Mr. Bogdanov!

Thedevil alone knows what this all means! This is a mockery of the
truth,of the Party.

Idemand categorically that the enclosed article be print edin
full. I have always permitted the editors to make changes in a
comradely manner, but after Mr. Bogdanov’s letter,I do not grantany right to alter or do anything else of that kind with this article. If
you do not print it, pass it on toProsveshcheniye; I insist on
havingcomplete freedomto fight against the distortion of Party
history. We are struggling against liquidationism andconcealingotzovism—this is such a despicable position that I can only assume that
the blunder was due tolack of knowledge in the matter.

Theeditorial board must state that it has convinced itself that
Mr. Bogdanov expounded theVperyodplatformincorrectlyand gave thefactsincorrectly.

Iinsist on an immediate reply. I cannot continue to con tribute
articles in face of Mr. Bogdanov’s despicable lying.

Atyour service,V. Ilyin

[1]Seep. 154 of this volume.—Ed.

[2]Thisletter to the editors ofPravdawas evoked by the
publication of a declaration by A. Bogdanov inPravdaNo. 120 on
May 26, 1913. Bogdanov tried to deny Lenin’s point that the renunciation of
work in the Duma and the use of other legal possibilities were connected
with theVperyodline (see p. 154 of this volume). In a comment to
Bogdanov’s letter made by the editors, it was stated that Bogdanov’s
declaration had been published for “purposes of objectivity”; this Lenin
vehemently objected to.

Inanswer to this comment Lenin sent, together with this letter, an
article (unpublished at that time and not found since) against Bogdanov’s
distortion of Party history. On a number of occasions Lenin warned the
editorial board that Bogdanov’s collaboration with a Bolshevik newspaper
was impermissible. On Lenin’s demand Bogdanov was excluded from the list ofPravdacontributors after he had written an article, “Ideology”,
which contained open propaganda of Machist views.

[3]Otzovism(fromotozvat—to recall)—-an opportunist
trend that took shape among Bolsheviks after the defeat of the Revolution
of 1905–07. The otzovists believed that under the conditions obtaining in
the period of reaction the Party should conduct only under ground work;
they demanded the recall of the Social-Democratic deputies from the Duma
and refused to participate in trade unions and other legal and semi-legal
working-class organisations. The policy advocated by the otzovists would
have alienated the Party from the masses and converted it into an isolated
sect.

[4]Domov—pseudonym of M. N. Pokrovsky.

[5]Volsky,Stanislav—pseudonym of A. V. Sokolov.

[6]Stepinsky—pseudonymof V. R. Menzhinsky.